Proof that there were NO explosives in the collapse of WTC 2 (South Tower)

Originally posted by samhouston1886
reply to post by ExPostFacto

 

Yes, I have argued with a brick wall(I was drunk) and also someone with a mental disorder. Not sure what that has to do here though. In direct response to your inquiry however, Your entire post contained nothing that is associated with the OP and that is not allowed in this forum. You are 'blogging' in a thread that is being used to ascertain the truth or fiction about a subject. All you did was use derogatory remarks to attack my intelligence, talk in vague numbers and declare that based on your belief system you think that the government was involved on 9/11.

What slaves? You are posting in a conspiracy forum.Try doing that in China or Iraq. You are free. You are given the choice and you can have a voice based on your rights in this country. However, you do not have the right to spread disinformation.

What consensus? Who says that there were explosives? Where is the evidence?

My point here is that there is no sound during the videos that would show demolition. None. In the video it shows the collapse at the point of failure. How can you not see that in the video. It is there, then buckles, and it collapses where the plane hit. Not 30 stories down. Not 50 down. No explosions.

As far as my research skills you are a little of base. That is the problem with this forum is that NO one can ever stay on target....stay on target. This is not about anything but NO explosions heard on videos during the collapse and leading up to said collapse.

As far as NYCCAN, I am sure that 66% of New Yorkers do not want a new investigation. good luck to all of you.

Originally posted by esdad71

3. This video shows another angle of the collapse. It cleary shows when the buckling occurs. It also has NO explosion sounds.

www.metacafe.com...

Thanks for showing that video I didnt see it before but it sure proves that explosives were used to bring down the buildings because you can clearly see explosives blasting out as the building collapses. thanks for validating my theory.

reply to post by warisover


Could you answer a question for me please? Why would the explosives be 'blasting out' and what type of explosives do you feel were used? In a demo you will generally see a chain of explosions before you will see the collapse. You are welcome for the video.

Esdad, thanks for the videos, especially the second in the set. I don't believe I ever saw that one and wow does it ever debunk a lot of explosive theories.

You can CLEARLY see the exact moment when the external supports break from the floor supports, collapsing the floors and starting the pancaking. For those of you curious about the noises as each floor hit, the 'explosions', they are explosions of air being pushed out of each floor by a couple thousand tons of pressure collapsing on top of it.

The puffs of smoke are air, smoke, and debris being expelled by this pressure out the windows, NOT explosives detonating.

Just as hard as it is for you truthers to understand why we can't wrap our head around the explosive detonation theory, I find it the exact opposite.

Especially with this thermite crap, you guys are trying to tell us they snuck into a 110 story building, removing roofing, flooring panels, and wall panels, and then systematically rigged every floor of BOTH buildings with enough explosives and highly complicated thermite trigger devices to take it down, while making at all look like it wasnt them?

Originally posted by hawkiye
reply to post by esdad71

 

Architects and Engineers for 9-11 Truth
www.ae911truth.org...

If you can refute their fact based analysis I will concede to your premise

Architects and Engineers for 9-11 Truth have only made claims and assertions based on questionable, inaccurate and/or wrong assumptions and premises. They haven't actually refuted any of the evidence or supported any of their claims with factual, irrefutable evidence.

Currently, they have been asked to explain the errors they made in a recruitment video discussed in this thread:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

We're waiting for A&E's response.

The burden of proof remains on A&E to support its own claims.

Originally posted by esdad71
reply to post by warisover

 

Could you answer a question for me please? Why would the explosives be 'blasting out' and what type of explosives do you feel were used?

I canot tell you what type of explosives were used.

THAT'S WHY WE NEED A REAL INVESTIGATION! Don't you agree?

reply to post by warisover


I did not ask you what was used but what you think was used? Simple question. There are a multitude of different theories that each person on here has with 9/11 as a whole. Some believe one part and not another. Some think it was lasers from space. Some just believe it was terrorists and no intervention. Why is it each time I ask someone for an opposite view they give me a link to a site about thermite or they saw they do not know. You have to have some type of theory?

I feel that the investigations so far have shown what happened so as much as I do not "not" want another investigation I am not against it just not at taxpayer cost. I do not want a dime of my taxes to pay for it when 1 of 6 children in our country go to sleep hungry each night. If the money can be raised I say go for it.

[edit on 18-3-2010 by esdad71]

reply to post by esdad71

There also has been no proven weapons grade materials found at the WTC site.

Yes there was, and sciences has already proven that.

A danish scientist Niels Harrit, on nano-thermite in the WTC dust ( english subtitles )

www.youtube.com...

The Open Chemical Physics Journal

www.bentham-open.org.../2009/00000002/00000001/7TOCPJ.SGM

These are “peer reviewed papers” and no one has done a peer reviewed to dispute this scientific fact.

Therefore, the evidences here does support demolitions, not a natural fall.

The WTC destroyed itself as it was coming down. Every inch of concrete was blasted into a fine powder, this is a scientific fact.

Concrete cannot be turned into powder or dust by it’s self on a normal collapse and sciences tells us that.

Had the WTC just falling down you would have millions of tons of broken concrete slabs at ground zero, yet there was none.

The OS cannot, and will not explain this fact. In fact the pulverization of all the WTC concrete doesn’t even support the OS, and that is something you and I can agree with, correct?



[edit on 18-3-2010 by impressme]

reply to post by impressme


Just a logical question, then, based on this you wrote:

Concrete cannot be turned into powder or dust by it’s self on a normal collapse and sciences tells us that.

Earlier in the same post you mention a Dutch scientist, and his report of "nano-thermite".

So, is it now your claim that "nano-thermite" will turn concrete into dust?

I'm havig difficulty following the logic, mostly, of all these varying "conspiracy" scenarios.

Also, you mentioned there should have been large slabs of concrete in the wreckage. Can you support that assertion in any way? Or, conversely, would you be at all surprised IF there actually had been large slabs of concrete present during the clean-up?

Because, these things can be easily researched.....

reply to post by weedwhacker

I'm havig difficulty following the logic, mostly, of all these varying "conspiracy" scenarios.

Perhaps it would be simpler for you to just avoid trying to make sense of “all these varying ‘conspiracy’ scenarios” and just accept your NIST and 911 commission reports as final.

reply to post by weedwhacker

So, is it now your claim that "nano-thermite" will turn concrete into dust?

No, I never made that ridiculous claim.
Where did I say, "nano-thermite" will turn concrete into dust?

At least you agree that the WTC destroyed itself as it fell. Not sure why concrete dispersing into dust is scientific but it also did happen. However, the concrete slabs is where you are incorrect as you are trying to compare WTC to a modern concrete design and that is not the case.

Concrete is not magic and does not need military grade explosives to destroy it. Here is a test. Go to Home Depot and buy a concrete block. Now go get a hammer and hit it. Did it break? Now, that hammer is the entity that converts your swing into kenetic energy. Now, if you put 12 stories at 40000 sq ft per floor and all of the office equipment per floor, once the support is removed, as observed in the video, there is no where to go but down which is what it did.

As far as saying ALL the concrete was pulverized is not a completely true statement but it did make clouds that covered multiple square blocks in lower Manhattan. No one can say that did not happen.

As far as peer review, how about ANY institution in the country starting with MIT, Cal-tech and Perdue doing a review or posting similar findings? Again just as you brush off NIST I would not doubt what many of the engineers that graduate from those universities say compared to paying to have someone 'read it' and post it to a web site to be peer reviewed.

[edit on 18-3-2010 by esdad71]

Originally posted by esdad71
reply to post by SPreston

 

As far as John Gross, the investigation was not complete. As far as the molten steel, it is well known that there were pools of molten metal because the fires burned for months. It was smoldering so the closer you get you are finding temperatures that are 1000 degrees on the ground(in your video) so it would be alot greater 100 feet underground covered up by two 100 story buildings.

So you are admitting that NIST lead engineer John Gross is a bald-faced liar?

Thank you very much.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/02883bf2c1b0.jpg[/atsimg]

Originally posted by jthomas

Originally posted by hawkiye
reply to post by esdad71

 

Architects and Engineers for 9-11 Truth
www.ae911truth.org...

If you can refute their fact based analysis I will concede to your premise

Architects and Engineers for 9-11 Truth have only made claims and assertions based on questionable, inaccurate and/or wrong assumptions and premises. They haven't actually refuted any of the evidence or supported any of their claims with factual, irrefutable evidence.

Currently, they have been asked to explain the errors they made in a recruitment video discussed in this thread:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

We're waiting for A&E's response.

The burden of proof remains on A&E to support its own claims.

Well you will have to be specific as to what errors you think they made. All I got from the thread was an argument over what fire fighters said what and when etc. I did not read the entire thread so maybe I missed something however that argument does not seem germane to the fact that A&E have proven with the evidence it was physically impossible for the planes and resulting fires to bring down any of the towers and building 7. All the arguments about who said what or what explosions were heard etc. do nothing to disprove the facts that it takes explosives to bring down buildings like that period and appear to be mainly distractions.

reply to post by esdad71

Concrete is not magic and does not need military grade explosives to destroy it. Here is a test. Go to Home Depot and buy a concrete block. Now go get a hammer and hit it. Did it break? Now, that hammer is the entity that converts your swing into kenetic energy. Now, if you put 12 stories at 40000 sq ft per floor and all of the office equipment per floor, once the support is removed, as observed in the video, there is no where to go but down which is what it did.

Boy am I stupid! If I had only known that the concrete blocks available at Home Depot were as strong as the concrete floors at the WTC, I could have saved a ton of money doing my foundation. I really need to keep up with folks like you who really know all about this stuff.

Good thing no one dropped a hammer inside the WTC all those years.

reply to post by SPreston


No, at the time the report was not complete.

reply to post by impressme


Do you know what an analogy is? or even a simple comparison? I mean, you stated that it all disappeared for scientific reasons anyone should understand. Care to elaborate as to what kind of science that is and how it applies?

This thread is about how there are no sounds of explosives prior to the collapse and you have not been able to discredit that.

reply to post by hawkiye


What fact based analysis are you referring to? All you gave me is a link to the main page. All I see is where I can take someone out to lunch...what a joke.

reply to post by esdad71

This thread is about how there are no sounds of explosives prior to the collapse and you have not been able to discredit that.

I disagree with you.
Perhaps, these credible people are all pathological lairs?
Firemen, police officers, WTC office workers, and first responders.

WTC 9/11 South Tower EXPLOSIONS Audio

Could all of the "popping" explosion sounds heard in this video be what many of the eyewitnesses have been talking about since 9/11? The key aspect of this video is it's audio track, and hearing it was a total shock to me. I've seen lots and lots of WTC videos, but up until a couple of days ago I've never HEARD anything like this. Keep in mind that the sound is travelling roughly 1000 feet to reach the microphone, making it seem about one second behind what you're seeing.

video.google.com...#

9/11 Cop says numerous secondary explosions heard in WTC

www.youtube.com...

Explosions Heard at WTC 9/11

www.youtube.com...

World Trade Center Pre-collaspe explosions clearly heard
Turn your speakers up to hear this one.

video.google.com...#

9/11 - WTC: Compiled Eyewitness Report on explosions – 1

www.youtube.com...

9/11: WTC sub-level explosions

www.youtube.com...

Interview with John Schroeder

video.google.com...#

Explosions Brought The Towers Down ...

www.evtv1.com...

9/11 Firefighters: Bombs andExplosions in the WTC

The independent commission probing the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks on New York and Washington decided not to hear from the worker group that lost more lives than anyone else to the terrorists: The Fire Fighters. [Workday Minnesota]
[Firefighter Louie] Cacchioli was called to testify privately [before the 9/11 Commission], but walked out on several members of the committee before they finished, feeling like he was being interrogated and cross-examined rather than simply allowed to tell the truth about what occurred in the north tower on 9/11. "My story was never mentioned in the final report [PDF download] and I felt like I was being put on trial in a court room," said Cacchioli. "I finally walked out. They were trying to twist my words and make the story fit only what they wanted to hear. All I wanted to do was tell the truth and when they wouldn't let me do that, I walked out. ... It was a disgrace to everyone, the victims and the family members who lost loved ones. I don't agree with the 9/11 Commission. The whole experience was terrible." [Arctic Beacon]


Edmund McNally phoned his wife Liz twice following the [WTC 2] aircraft impact. Mr McNally said in his second phone call "Liz, this was a terrorist attack. I can hear explosions below me." [NY Times]
Tom Elliott, WTC 2 survivor: They saw only two firemen going up. They told them there had been an explosion near the 60th floor. [csmonitor]
Kim White, WTC 1 survivor: "We got down as far as the 74th floor ... Then there was another explosion, so we left again by the stairwell." [People]
Explosions occurred below the aircraft impact levels in both towers prior to the collapses. The following gives a reason for the explosions


As they were making there way up the floors, Firefighter Schroeder heard a huge explosion. “The elevators just blew right out. We couldn’t believe it. The plane hits 80 floors up but the elevators explode at least five minutes later? It was unreal.”

whatreallyhappened.com...

9/11 Port Authority cop heard explosion before WTC collapse

www.youtube.com...

BBC Big Explosion At World Trade Center

www.dailymotion.com...

9/11 Witnesses to explosions at WTC

vids.myspace.com...

I have provided credible eyewitness and recordings that have proved the validity of explosions, without any reason of doubt. I have provided you credible proof there were “explosions” before and during the demolition of the WTC.





[edit on 19-3-2010 by impressme]

there were indeed Sounds of explosions going on around, but none of these can be positively identified as being solely contributed by explosives of any kind.

Explosions that were heard that day were also put down to being from,

jumpers falling onto pavement and glass awnings.
floors collapsing on top of one another.
fires.
jet fuel burning.
gas leaks.
plane hitting building.
tranformers.
electrical sources.
elevator falling.
building collapse.
and probably many other causes.